Republicans aim to re-introduce "3/5 of a person"

Republican lawmakers in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin are considering whether to abandon the winner-take-all approach to awarding Electoral College votes and replace it with a proportional allocation. That change would heavily favor Republican presidential candidates — tilting the voting power away from cities and toward rural areas — and make it more likely that the candidate with the fewest votes over all would win a larger share of electoral votes.

...

The Washington Post reported Thursday that the sponsor of Virginia bill’s, Charles W. Carrico Sr., a Republican, “said he wants to give smaller communities a bigger voice.” Carrico told The Post, “The last election, constituents were concerned that it didn’t matter what they did, that more densely populated areas were going to outvote them.” Yes, you read that right: he wants to make the votes cast for the candidate receiving the fewest votes matter more than those cast for the candidate receiving the most.

...

Paul Bibeau, who writes “a blog of dark humor” from Virginia, points out a numerical oddity about the effects of the Virginia law that turns out, upon reflection, to be more stinging than funny: “This bill counts an Obama voter as 3/5 of a person.”

That is because, as Talking Points Memo says, “Obama voters would have received almost exactly 3/5 of the electoral vote compared to their actual population — 30.7 percent of the electoral vote over 51 percent of the popular vote.”

10. I actually like that balance of populace and states.

It ensures that people who live in rural areas aren't getting shafted by a majority of people elsewhere who have no concern for a minorities interests. It prevents a 'Tyranny of the Majority'.

The senate represent state interests and the House represents the people's interests. I'm fine with that.
Don't forget to mention that California has 53 House Reps and Montana has only 1 and that for legislation to bass, it must be agreed upon by the House and Senate!

16. That is a somewhat reasonable argument.

But it doesn't justify the huge difference in political power between states like Montana and California. A Montana resident has 30 time more power in the US senate than I do, since I live in California. It's hard to feel like that's just fine and dandy.

12. It's worse than that

Wyoming with 0.5 million people has two senators, as does California with 37 million people.

I've proposed before that no state should have more than 12 representatives; when you get that big, split up into smaller states. It keeps adding new states to the Union, with new state constitutions and the latest ideas in government. And it keeps a state from being too under-represented in DC.

13. If this isn't proof the districts are gerrymandered, I don't know what is.

In state after state, urban voters have been crammed into as few districts as possible, resulting in a relatively small number of overwhelmingly lopsided democratic districts, and relatively large number of barely-republican districts.